What do you think are the major pros/cons of each current generation?

[JasonBlack]

Preface: I can be pretty blunt at times, so I should start with the obvious disclaimer that wonderful people exist in every generation. I've attempted to be even handed here and take a hard look at both the negatives and the positives (I'll be a little nicer to the zoomer kiddos, since they are the least accountable at this point). Needless to say, not every point I or anyone else makes will apply to you, so feel free to let that roll off your back. 


Boomer Pros:
- industrious
- strong conviction
- have the spine to actually debate people. With millennials and zoomers, I have to use kiddy gloves (in the case of the latter, they are children, so I can forgive that), and Gen X usually just don't bother debating people in the first place. 
- actually get their values from themselves rather than relying on outside 
- assertive and direct. boomers know how to communicate. you know where you stand with them.
- unlike millennials, they....actually did shit to make meaningful civil rights progress

Boomer Cons: 
- strong tendency to talk at rather than to people, which often leads to them not really listening and giving blanket, over-simplistic advice that doesn't work for whatever specific situation the person is talking about 
- Turn even the most mundane thing into a moral talking point. sometimes it...really is just a job. you do it, attain your goal, and go home.  
- They call them an "idealist generation" for a reason. as much as I admire the guts and conviction mentioned above, they often hold an almost teenage notion of justice mired in lofty rhetoric at the expense of practical plans of action. you're over 60 now. It's time to stop railing against authority and actually be the authority the world needs now. Being that rebellious when you're in a position of institutional power is dangerous. 
- As a millennial, I always got the sense they were trying to groom me for some moral crusade and distrusted most of them. "great, so all you have to do is come up with the values and I'm the one who actually has to do the fighting? ...nah, that's not gonna happen" 
- get overly worked up over things. It was annoying growing up and having to feel like I always had to be the calm one from like 7 years old. 

13er Pros:
- rugged individualism is awesome. y'all are the least likely to rely on daddy government to give you a sense of purpose and protect you
- enterprising and resourceful
- strong protective instincts 
- usually leave people alone and respect boundaries 
- cliquish behavior is...kinda underrated. it makes much more sense to look out for your own and associate with people of similar interests and values. 

13er Cons:
- being stoic and "strong and silent" all the time does not make you bad ass. it's way more bad ass to actually be assertive 
- I get that you're over-correcting from your own childhood where you weren't given enough protection and affection, but helicopter parenting is not a good look. 
- there is a difference between a healthy dose of self-reliance and being content with a deteriorating system. you care about your kids right? how are you supposed to ensure they have a better future if you won't do anything about the world going to hell in a hand basket?

Millennial Pros: 
- increasingly, they're...actually willing to discuss real policy, 
- seem to be the only ones interested in pragmatic solutions to this crisis 
- more polite to retail and restaurant workers than boomers or Gen X
- generally care about being competent and will put effort into making sure they do things right 
- contrary to popular opinion, millennials are not a selfish generation. they're a very socially minded generation willing to pay the costs to make things better

Millennial Cons: 
- neuroses around self-sacrifice and guilt. if some millennials are doing a good job exercising civic responsibility, others are spiteful and basically want America to fail cuz "colonialism". The implication is that you cannot expect them to debate in good faith because they don't even share the basic assumption of "we want America to be more prosperous"
- reduce everything to demographics and make snap judgments about people's life circumstances based on like 4 factors 
- conventional and obedient. 
- demand other people be conventional and obedient 
- stop trying to save the world and focus on your own life and looking out for your own friends and family
- bitch about boomers, only to....dutifully protest exactly the same causes their parents did. You serious mate? 
- you can be "liberal" or you can constantly police people's behavior, you cannot do both
- millennial feminism is the most atrocious ideology to pop up in American history since Jim Crow. a truly malignant, sarcastic and downright solipsistic value system that attempts to get all of the privileges of men with none of the responsibilities 
- snippy passive-aggression
- it's okay to think you're special, but other people don't have an obligation to care 



Zoomer Pros:
- those memes bro, they be dank. definitely the modern generation with the quickest wit and best sense of humor 
- a lot more sweet and gentle than I remember being when I was younger (millennials were mostly bratty children, including me)
- they aren't just receptive to instruction, they actively seek it out and are respectful when you give it. 
- zoomer conservatives even more based than their conservative boomer grandparents. they understand their views inside and out and are highly educated where it's actually important

Zoomer Cons: 
- I get that you're young, but...there is more to having principles than just being compassionate. 
- Even more passive-aggressive than millennials. with the latter, passive-aggression comes out in more overt episodes you can take note of. With zoomers, their entire communication style is a sliding scale between  I would punch someone my age in the face or ground my children for 2 months if they were that passive-aggressive with me. 
- Zoomers have a well-developed sense of ettiquette. The problem is that it usually doesn't make any sense. for example, it's considered rude to call people without warning them first cuz "social anxiety". In other words...you feel a ton of responsibility to take care of other people's feelings, but none for taking care of your own feelings? That makes no sense at all.

[Eric the Green]

Quote:- As a millennial, I always got the sense they were trying to groom me for some moral crusade and distrusted most of them. "great, so all you have to do is come up with the values and I'm the one who actually has to do the fighting? ...nah, that's not gonna happen" -- JasonBlack

That was the fervent hope and the lofty portrait given by the authors of The Fourth Turning. I doubt most Boomers have even read the book, and I doubt this idea has much currency outside of T4T readers. But, it's a neat fantasy. It's not really even historically correct, at least not all of the time. It was the civics who spearheaded the labor movement in the 1937 period, for example, and I don't think they were merely following what Daddy said to do. But they certainly did their part in such projects as the CCC.

The problem is that today's Millennials don't see as much worthy of following in the Boomers. They see them as hogging the wealth and status, and as righteously fostering divisions (as you do), among other things. The herd instinct has declined too since previous 4Ts, partly due to the Boomers' influence.

It's not clear exactly what Millennials are being asked to do these days in order to follow Boomer values. The division in the country makes it seem more like an anomaly going on, since this is a civil war 4T like the 1850s-mid 1860s instead of an external-focused one like 1929-1945. So which side are Millennials being asked to follow? It's not like they are all being herded into the CCC or the army. If Millennials appear to be interested in the same causes as Boomers are, that is less due to their desire to follow Boomers than to the mere fact that the same problems affecting us have gone unattended to for 40 years of neoliberalism, and are just the same ones still left over from this 40 years of neglect, reaction and regression.

One bright spot is that the older Millennials had the highest rates of covid vaccination of any generational group. That shows their ability to obey the "liberal" common-sense requirement to care about others and not spread disease, in contrast to the libertarian delusion that vaccines are an individual decision and should not be "policed." They understand that liberal is not equal to libertarian, and in fact is almost opposite. Kudoes to them in that respect, and in contrast to some of the Xers/13ers. The great Millennial Gen ability is to be collegial and to network and respect science and technology. They fill the void left by some Xers and some Boomers in that respect.

I hope they can apply that ability to indeed to concern themselves with the world's problems, which intrude on all of us personally now, and act together to solve them, which is the only way they will be solved, as well as carry out the work that needs to be done day to day and nearer to personal experience. We can't depend on trickle-down economics schemes and the invisible hand of each person just freely pursuing their own needs to solve these real concerns impinging on us all now in our fourth turning.

[JasonBlack]

(02-18-2022, 05:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That was the fervent hope and the lofty portrait given by the authors of The Fourth Turning. I doubt most Boomers have even read the book, and I doubt this idea has much currency outside of T4T readers. But, it's a neat fantasy. It's not really even historically correct, at least not all of the time. It was the civics who spearheaded the labor movement in the 1937 period, for example, and I don't think they were merely following what Daddy said to do. But they certainly did their part in such projects as the CCC.

fwiw, I felt this long, long before reading The Fourth Turning. In all fairness though, this could easily be confirmation bias, as my temperament is extremely libertarian and I might have thought that about any authority growing up (one reason I've turned more conservative and pro-certain types of rules is because I'm self-aware enough to know that what my instincts want isn't always what actually works).

Quote:The problem is that today's Millennials don't see as much worthy of following in the Boomers. They see them as hogging the wealth and status, and as righteously fostering divisions (as you do), among other things. The herd instinct has declined too since previous 4Ts, partly due to the Boomers' influence.

They say they don't,  but in reality I think they're pretty mixed. The evidence suggests they find boomer music and ideals inspiring even if not the actual individuals themselves, and even then, many get on fine with their parents. As for the lesser herd instinct, I count that as a positive.  

Quote:It's not clear exactly what Millennials are being asked to do these days in order to follow Boomer values. The division in the country makes it seem more like an anomaly going on, since this is a civil war 4T like the 1850s-mid 1860s instead of an external-focused one like 1929-1945. So which side are Millennials being asked to follow? It's not like they are all being herded into the CCC or the army. If Millennials appear to be interested in the same causes as Boomers are, that is less due to their desire to follow Boomers than to the mere fact that the same problems affecting us have gone unattended to for 40 years of neoliberalism, and are just the same ones still left over from this 40 years of neglect, reaction and regression.

tbh, I think Millennials need to create an enemy to justify their virtue signaling. They can't really come up with their own values, so they need to pretend that boomers were really super racist this whole time so they can say "No! Those boomers didn't really believe in all that Million Man March stuff! Those are our values!"

Quote:One bright spot is that the older Millennials had the highest rates of covid vaccination of any generational group. That shows their ability to obey the "liberal" common-sense requirement to care about others and not spread disease, in contrast to the libertarian delusion that vaccines are an individual decision and should not be "policed." They understand that liberal is not equal to libertarian, and in fact is almost opposite. Kudoes to them in that respect, and in contrast to some of the Xers/13ers. The great Millennial Gen ability is to be collegial and to network and respect science and technology. They fill the void left by some Xers and some Boomers in that respect.

My view on this is simultaneously "it's probably safer to get the vaccine" and "the WHO, CDC and various world governments are being extremely intellectually dishonest, pushing measures that don't actually lessen the spread and fail to suggest even the most common sense measures to boost the immune system. I have no reason to believe they're any less interested in power at all costs as the Big Pharma corporations they're propping up".

Quote:I hope they can apply that ability to indeed to concern themselves with the world's problems, which intrude on all of us personally now, and act together to solve them, which is the only way they will be solved, as well as carry out the work that needs to be done day to day and nearer to personal experience.

No objections so far

Quote:We can't depend on trickle-down economics schemes and the invisible hand of each person just freely pursuing their own needs to solve these real concerns impinging on us all now in our fourth turning.

You only have to rely on wealth "trickling down" if you are dependent on employment (that term is a leftist caricature of right wing economics btw), but alas, market forces are necessary, but not sufficient.

[David Horn]

(02-18-2022, 11:01 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(02-18-2022, 05:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We can't depend on trickle-down economics schemes and the invisible hand of each person just freely pursuing their own needs to solve these real concerns impinging on us all now in our fourth turning.

You only have to rely on wealth "trickling down" if you are dependent on employment (that term is a leftist caricature of right wing economics btw), but alas, market forces are necessary, but not sufficient.

Not mine to respond to, but I will, nonetheless.

Market forces operate in an ideal environment with perfect competition and without collusion. There is no time in history when that case has existed. So we're starting from a flawed premise, but one with value: commercial products and services tend to improve when a variety of options is available to select. That case only occurs when the heavy hand of government is there, either in reality or standing-by at the very least. We've tried neutering that through massive deregulation and tax cuts which brought us to this point. Perhaps there was too much regulation in the past and too high taxation of the wealthy and corporations. Certainly, neither is the case today. Quite the opposite.

[JasonBlack]

(02-19-2022, 09:27 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-18-2022, 11:01 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(02-18-2022, 05:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We can't depend on trickle-down economics schemes and the invisible hand of each person just freely pursuing their own needs to solve these real concerns impinging on us all now in our fourth turning.

You only have to rely on wealth "trickling down" if you are dependent on employment (that term is a leftist caricature of right wing economics btw), but alas, market forces are necessary, but not sufficient.

Not mine to respond to, but I will, nonetheless.

Market forces operate in an ideal environment with perfect competition and without collusion. There is no time in history when that case has existed. So we're starting from a flawed premise, but one with value: commercial products and services tend to improve when a variety of options is available to select. That case only occurs when the heavy hand of government is there, either in reality or standing-by at the very least. We've tried neutering that through massive deregulation and tax cuts which brought us to this point. Perhaps there was too much regulation in the past and too high taxation of the wealthy and corporations. Certainly, neither is the case today. Quite the opposite.

Market forces work in all kinds of scenarios (think of how expensive your current PC was compared to the one before that, and the one before that...and the one before that). The ideal, unreal conditions you described are what is required for them to function sans any regulation.

[David Horn]

(02-19-2022, 09:43 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: Market forces work in all kinds of scenarios (think of how expensive your current PC was compared to the one before that, and the one before that...and the one before that). The ideal, unreal conditions you described are what is required for them to function sans any regulation.

That's an atypical example of tech change.  Tech has been driven by the ability to cram more performance in less space and produce it for less money -- as predicted by George Moore (Moore's Law) in 1965.  That's not much a universal answer.

Show me a similar example in housing or any part of the food chain.  Then consider the obvious: necessary products in the marketplace are under near total dominance by monopolies: energy, food, healthcare (especially pharmaceuticals) and even things as trivial as shopping.  For example, who challenges Amazon?

Market forces only work when there is a legitimate market, and few exist today.  The one you cited: PCs, is a great example.  How many companies produce PCs today, in comparison to 20 years ago?  How many produce operating systems and compatible software? And cellphones are an even more extreme example.  If you want iOS, it's Apple or nothing.  And there are really only two operating systems and app stores to choose from.

[sbarrera]

This is a great list of Pros and Cons of the generations, most of which I am in 100% agreement with. I can't weigh in much on Zoomers because I barely know any, certainly not in enough numbers or well enough to pass a judgement on their collective peer personality.

I wonder - should "conventional" be a CON for the Millennials? I think it can be a PRO. Millennials have established a "basic" mode of being and expression that is acceptable, relieving one of the pressure of crafting some unique persona that stands out, as Gen Xers have felt motivated to do. What good is ever more extreme individual expression if we have so many real-world problems to solve? What help is being a maverick when conformity is actually of benefit? For example, in pandemic response or labor organization, two issues of huge importance to the young adult working population.

[Eric the Green]

(02-19-2022, 12:33 PM)sbarrera Wrote: This is a great list of Pros and Cons of the generations, most of which I am in 100% agreement with. I can't weigh in much on Zoomers because I barely know any, certainly not in enough numbers or well enough to pass a judgement on their collective peer personality.

I wonder - should "conventional" be a CON for the Millennials? I think it can be a PRO. Millennials have established a "basic" mode of being and expression that is acceptable, relieving one of the pressure of crafting some unique persona that stands out, as Gen Xers have felt motivated to do. What good is ever more extreme individual expression if we have so many real-world problems to solve? What help is being a maverick when conformity is actually of benefit? For example, in pandemic response or labor organization, two issues of huge importance to the young adult working population.

I agree, and that description of Generation X applies even more to some of us Boomers. We need both individualists and organization, but Millennials are potentially bringing some collective awareness and willingness to respond together to balance out the individualism prominent in the previous two generations. I hope it's enough, and IF it is, they will vote in the 2022 midterm to maintain Democratic control of the House and Senate, and not empower libertarian economics-- still most-predominant in the Republican Party yet again. They first learned to be real civics and vote in midterms in 2018.

[Eric the Green]

(02-18-2022, 11:01 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

Quote:We can't depend on trickle-down economics schemes and the invisible hand of each person just freely pursuing their own needs to solve these real concerns impinging on us all now in our fourth turning.

You only have to rely on wealth "trickling down" if you are dependent on employment (that term is a leftist caricature of right wing economics btw), but alas, market forces are necessary, but not sufficient.

I'm glad we saw more closely together on most of your reply to me. However, of course trickle down economics is not a caricature of right wing economics, but exactly what it is. Although you really have to understand both the 1978 tax revolt and neoliberalism applied in the USA as Reaganomics to understand that right wing "free-market" economics has crippled us and stymied any progress in dealing with our needs for 40 years and counting.

Most people will always be dependent on employment. I am glad there are small businesses, and entreprenuers, and we need them, subject to regulation so they don't become oligarchs, which we have allowed a few of them to be-- to our general detriment. But most people don't have the temperament to be entreprenuers, and we shouldn't require that of people. Most will still depend on the businesses that entreprenuers or the government creates for their jobs. And that's OK, we need all of it. As long as we don't worship the wealthy CEOs and corporate owners as "job creaters," which they on balance are not, and that wealth does not "trickle down" from them if we give them tax breaks and deregulation and other subsidies. Inequality and increasing poverty and vanishing opportunity for young people is the direct result of our trickle-down economics regime these last 40-plus years.

http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html

[Eric the Green]

Entrepreneur Nick Hanauer provides one of my favorite explanations of how trickle-down economics rips us all off.

https://fb.watch/bh4c8sHXDE/

[beechnut79]

(02-19-2022, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-18-2022, 11:01 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

Quote:We can't depend on trickle-down economics schemes and the invisible hand of each person just freely pursuing their own needs to solve these real concerns impinging on us all now in our fourth turning.

You only have to rely on wealth "trickling down" if you are dependent on employment (that term is a leftist caricature of right wing economics btw), but alas, market forces are necessary, but not sufficient.

I'm glad we saw more closely together on most of your reply to me. However, of course trickle down economics is not a caricature of right wing economics, but exactly what it is. Although you really have to understand both the 1978 tax revolt and neoliberalism applied in the USA as Reaganomics to understand that right wing "free-market" economics has crippled us and stymied any progress in dealing with our needs for 40 years and counting.

Most people will always be dependent on employment. I am glad there are small businesses, and entreprenuers, and we need them, subject to regulation so they don't become oligarchs, which we have allowed a few of them to be-- to our general detriment. But most people don't have the temperament to be entreprenuers, and we shouldn't require that of people. Most will still depend on the businesses that entreprenuers or the government creates for their jobs. And that's OK, we need all of it. As long as we don't worship the wealthy CEOs and corporate owners as "job creaters," which they on balance are not, and that wealth does not "trickle down" from them if we give them tax breaks and deregulation and other subsidies. Inequality and increasing poverty and vanishing opportunity for young people is the direct result of our trickle-down economics regime these last 40-plus years.

http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html

Suffice to say that Reaganomics has remained on the shelf long past what should have been it’ sell-by date. When do you think that SBD May finally arrive?

[JasonBlack]

(02-19-2022, 11:11 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: I'm glad we saw more closely together on most of your reply to me. However, of course trickle down economics is not a caricature of right wing economics, but exactly what it is. Although you really have to understand both the 1978 tax revolt and neoliberalism applied in the USA as Reaganomics to understand that right wing "free-market" economics has crippled us and stymied any progress in dealing with our needs for 40 years and counting.

Most people will always be dependent on employment. I am glad there are small businesses, and entreprenuers, and we need them, subject to regulation so they don't become oligarchs, which we have allowed a few of them to be-- to our general detriment. But most people don't have the temperament to be entreprenuers, and we shouldn't require that of people. Most will still depend on the businesses that entreprenuers or the government creates for their jobs. And that's OK, we need all of it. As long as we don't worship the wealthy CEOs and corporate owners as "job creaters," which they on balance are not, and that wealth does not "trickle down" from them if we give them tax breaks and deregulation and other subsidies. Inequality and increasing poverty and vanishing opportunity for young people is the direct result of our trickle-down economics regime these last 40-plus years

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these militantly anti-tax libertarians, but is the problem that corporations and rich people aren't paying enough taxes, or that they were able to subvert the system by paying off lobbyists to rig the game? Personally, I think it's the latter. Someone else simply having more money doesn't affect you that much. Someone changing the rules you have to play by to keep you from entering? That changes a lot.

I kind of want to refer to myself as a "checks and balances-ist", because in my mind, that's the primary role government serves. Unfortunately, while we have a decent start when it comes to checks and balances between government organizations and checks and balances from government to citizens, we don't have nearly as many on big business and lobbyists (frankly, I think the latter should be straight up illegal to begin with).

[JasonBlack]

(02-19-2022, 12:33 PM)sbarrera Wrote: This is a great list of Pros and Cons of the generations, most of which I am in 100% agreement with. I can't weigh in much on Zoomers because I barely know any, certainly not in enough numbers or well enough to pass a judgement on their collective peer personality.

I wonder - should "conventional" be a CON for the Millennials? I think it can be a PRO. Millennials have established a "basic" mode of being and expression that is acceptable, relieving one of the pressure of crafting some unique persona that stands out, as Gen Xers have felt motivated to do. What good is ever more extreme individual expression if we have so many real-world problems to solve? What help is being a maverick when conformity is actually of benefit? For example, in pandemic response or labor organization, two issues of huge importance to the young adult working population.

But most millennials still want to be unique and special. They just aren't, because they're too concerned with the opinions of others. If someone just is unique and wants to be allowed to be themselves, that's a positive. If someone is more practical and more focused on getting things done and looking after people they care about, that's a positive too. What's not a positive is obsessing over standing out in a "special" way, while also lacking the courage or authenticity that would allow one to truly stand out.

[David Horn]

(02-20-2022, 10:03 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these militantly anti-tax libertarians, but is the problem that corporations and rich people aren't paying enough taxes, or that they were able to subvert the system by paying off lobbyists to rig the game? Personally, I think it's the latter. Someone else simply having more money doesn't affect you that much. Someone changing the rules you have to play by to keep you from entering? That changes a lot.

You might want to give Thomas Pikkety's book Capital in the 21st Century a read (not a trivial undertaking, to be totally honest about it). He makes the point with one simple mathematical expression: r > G. What he means by that is, rate of return on investments exceeds the Growth rate of the economy. This has been going on for a long time and is in full crescendo today. When that occurs, the holders of capital, mostly the already very wealthy, increase their wealth faster than the economy grows, so the excess becomes even more capital and buys what they don't already own. Given enough time, and that time frame isn't all that long, the few hyper wealthy will own everything. OK, you might have a home, at least for a while, but that imbalance is terminal. It's a formula for modern Feudalism. The purpose of the book is to show that in terms that can't be ignored -- which it does in spades.

JB Wrote:I kind of want to refer to myself as a "checks and balances-ist", because in my mind, that's the primary role government serves. Unfortunately, while we have a decent start when it comes to checks and balances between government organizations and checks and balances from government to citizens, we don't have nearly as many on big business and lobbyists (frankly, I think the latter should be straight up illegal to begin with).

The idea is wonderful in theory and unworkable in practice. A capitalist economy operates on a positive feedback loop: get rich, use that wealth to get richer, rinse and repeat. Lobbyists, disgusting as they are, are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

[JasonBlack]

Quote:You might want to give Thomas Pikkety's book Capital in the 21st Century a read (not a trivial undertaking, to be totally honest about it).  He makes the point with one simple mathematical expression: r > G.  What he means by that is, rate of return on investments exceeds the Growth rate of the economy.  This has been going on for a long time and is in full crescendo today.  When that occurs, the holders of capital, mostly the already very wealthy, increase their wealth faster than the economy grows, so the excess becomes even more capital and buys what they don't already own.  Given enough time, and that time frame isn't all that long, the few hyper wealthy will own everything.  OK, you might have a home, at least for a while, but that imbalance is terminal.  It's a formula for modern Feudalism.  The purpose of the book is to show that in terms that can't be ignored -- which it does in spades.

Personally I blame this as much on fiat currency as anything else. We went off the gold standard in 1971 and this happened. Wages have a long history of rising far slower than inflation under such a model. The primary people it hurts are wage earners, responsible savers and retirees no longer earning income. 

I can tell you as an investor, it's not us it hurts haha. 

Quote:The idea is wonderful in theory and unworkable in practice.  A capitalist economy operates on a positive feedback loop: get rich, use that wealth to get richer, rinse and repeat.  Lobbyists, disgusting as they are, are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

It's not unworkable in practice. New Zealand saw HUGE drops in corruption when they severely restricted campaign spending. Currently they fluctuate between 1st and 2nd place in terms of low government corruption.

[JasonBlack]

(02-19-2022, 11:21 AM)David Horn Wrote: That's an atypical example of tech change.  Tech has been driven by the ability to cram more performance in less space and produce it for less money -- as predicted by George Moore (Moore's Law) in 1965.  That's not much a universal answer.

Be that as it may, the point I'm arguing for is a little more general than the one you're refuting: a large middle class was a virtually non-existent concept until the Industrial Revolution spread the market economy to the masses.

We have plenty of variations on the market economy to look it, from neoliberal America, to welfare state Norway, to somewhere in the middle like Australia. Speaking of Australia, I am a fan economically. There superannuation seems like a common sense improvement to the broken 401K system of the US, and they manage to be both high wage, and high upward mobility for more ambitiously capitalist minded individuals. However, I am categorically NOT a fan of their recent social policy. Fascist is an understatement. Their police state level surveillance and demands are straight up Orwellian and would make Mussolini look libertarian.

[JasonBlack]

So far, this thread has been a good example of one of my positive points about boomers: they will actually stick around and debate if they can see you also have some fire in your belly.

On the other hand, most millennials lack this ability, so most boomers don't respect them, and neither do most of their own female peers. As for the latter, it's generally pretty easy to just...made millennial women respect you. They don't respond to explanations or even accomplishment. They respond to people who believe they reserve respect and telling them what the boundaries are.

ex:
millennial woman: "ugh, that's so patriarchal!"
me: "yes. exactly"
millennial woman: "wait...what?!"
me: "look around you. you're a feminist, you've dated male feminists, your parents both taught you to be feminist your whole life...how's that worked for you?"
millennial girl: "uh..."
me: "right, it's a bunch of nonsense that has been failing us for 30 years. call me whatever you like"

I've had well over 10 iterations of similar conversations. millennial women who will chide liberal males who try to explain why they're not sexist will leave me alone after a single conversation and even respect me more for it, because they associate explanations with excuses and weakness. Don't get me wrong though, I blame women for holding in contempt what they continually say they want just as much as I blame men for throwing away their dignity and pandering to get female approval. You have dishonesty from one party, and lack of self-respect from the other.

[Eric the Green]

In these sorts of evaluations of whole groups of people, it's best to take them with a grain of salt; or maybe a salt mine's worth. And personal experiences are likely to be limited and/or biased compared to studies by science or investigative journalism where we can put some facts and numbers to go along with peoples' stories.

[Eric the Green]

(02-19-2022, 11:11 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(02-19-2022, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-18-2022, 11:01 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

Quote:We can't depend on trickle-down economics schemes and the invisible hand of each person just freely pursuing their own needs to solve these real concerns impinging on us all now in our fourth turning.

You only have to rely on wealth "trickling down" if you are dependent on employment (that term is a leftist caricature of right wing economics btw), but alas, market forces are necessary, but not sufficient.

I'm glad we saw more closely together on most of your reply to me. However, of course trickle down economics is not a caricature of right wing economics, but exactly what it is. Although you really have to understand both the 1978 tax revolt and neoliberalism applied in the USA as Reaganomics to understand that right wing "free-market" economics has crippled us and stymied any progress in dealing with our needs for 40 years and counting.

Most people will always be dependent on employment. I am glad there are small businesses, and entreprenuers, and we need them, subject to regulation so they don't become oligarchs, which we have allowed a few of them to be-- to our general detriment. But most people don't have the temperament to be entreprenuers, and we shouldn't require that of people. Most will still depend on the businesses that entreprenuers or the government creates for their jobs. And that's OK, we need all of it. As long as we don't worship the wealthy CEOs and corporate owners as "job creaters," which they on balance are not, and that wealth does not "trickle down" from them if we give them tax breaks and deregulation and other subsidies. Inequality and increasing poverty and vanishing opportunity for young people is the direct result of our trickle-down economics regime these last 40-plus years.

http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html

Suffice to say that Reaganomics has remained on the shelf long past what should have been it’ sell-by date. When do you think that SBD May finally arrive?

Good question. I actually thought this year was the sell by date. Given Biden's unpopularity, that appears doubtful. According to the right-leaning (but not right-wing) Real Clear Politics site, Trump is now more popular than Biden by 2 points. They use the Trafalgar poll among many others, but that one is a dishonest right-wing poll.

So, if the Democrats lose the House and don't gain several seats in the Senate (let alone lose control there too), the reform era will be put on hold again in favor of more Reaganomics. Perhaps given a favorable aspect in March-May, and somewhat favorable in the Fall, the Biden Build Back Better Bill (the BBBBB) might have a chance to pass, and if so, that would be a good first step for taking Reaganomics out of circulation.

[Eric the Green]

(02-20-2022, 03:45 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

Quote:You might want to give Thomas Pikkety's book Capital in the 21st Century a read (not a trivial undertaking, to be totally honest about it).  He makes the point with one simple mathematical expression: r > G.  What he means by that is, rate of return on investments exceeds the Growth rate of the economy.  This has been going on for a long time and is in full crescendo today.  When that occurs, the holders of capital, mostly the already very wealthy, increase their wealth faster than the economy grows, so the excess becomes even more capital and buys what they don't already own.  Given enough time, and that time frame isn't all that long, the few hyper wealthy will own everything.  OK, you might have a home, at least for a while, but that imbalance is terminal.  It's a formula for modern Feudalism.  The purpose of the book is to show that in terms that can't be ignored -- which it does in spades.

Personally I blame this as much on fiat currency as anything else. We went off the gold standard in 1971 and this happened. Wages have a long history of rising far slower than inflation under such a model. The primary people it hurts are wage earners, responsible savers and retirees no longer earning income. 

I can tell you as an investor, it's not us it hurts haha. 

Quote:The idea is wonderful in theory and unworkable in practice.  A capitalist economy operates on a positive feedback loop: get rich, use that wealth to get richer, rinse and repeat.  Lobbyists, disgusting as they are, are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

It's not unworkable in practice. New Zealand saw HUGE drops in corruption when they severely restricted campaign spending. Currently they fluctuate between 1st and 2nd place in terms of low government corruption.

The gold standard is as arbitrary as any other standard. It has value because we say it does. I suspect blaming fiat currency is pointing at the wrong problem. I suspect the problem is Reaganomics (libertarian economics).

The oil crisis in 1973 caused a mini-depression in the mid 1970s. Conservative policies of neoliberalism were already appearing under Nixon-Ford and Carter. These policies really got rolling under Reagan, and we can see the decisive shift in 1980-81. Once the economy recovered from another oil recession in 1979-82, productivity went up. But as Rachel Maddow showed in the video above, this recovery benefited only the rich. Trickle-down economics policies meant that most people saw their wages decline or stay the same while the rich piled up more and more riches. 

Conservative policies, especially under Reagan and Bush, were 

1) to keep wages flat by refusing to pass minimum wage laws
2) to break up or make it harder to pass or form workers' unions, which had kept wages up before 1980.
3) to lower taxes, especially on rich people, in the belief that they are "job creaters" (GW Bush accent), from whom the benefits will trickle down. But it doesn't; it piles up for the rich. They use their money to buy luxuries, do buyouts, make risky speculations, replace workers with machines, etc., not pay more to their workers. So, CEO salaries rose to 300 times their employees.
4) to reduce regulations on business, which means it can get away with polluting, climate change, making shoddy and unsafe products, charging unfair higher prices, creating poor working conditions, allowing more risky speculation, increasing racial profiling and discrimination, and more, all making it less likely that companies will do a good job for the money we pay, and allowing them instead to rob the people in many ways. Increasing climate change also means more disaster relief, paid for by the people and the taxpayers.
5) to reduce social welfare and other programs that help the needy, increasing poverty and thus reducing consumer spending and depressing the economy for everyone.
6) libertarian policies allowing more risky speculation also have the effect that when they fail, the banks and financial companies get bailed out instead of regulated or broken up, which is just more transfer of wealth by the state from the taxpayers to the wealthy. Since fiscal Keynesian government spending policies have been taken off the table by Reaganomics neoliberalism, the only cure for a slow economy is quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve, which is yet another wealth transfer to banks and businesses.
7) Another result of such bailouts and Fed loans made to distribute money as well as the enormous tax cuts is more debt, which has become even more astronomical than housing prices, especially the national debt. Eventually this could cause interest rates to go up sky high, or defaults, or just more and more money we are asking future generations and young people to pay instead of the economic libertarians of today. By raising the debt sky high, the Republican neoliberals create another excuse not to do social welfare spending since then they claim we can't afford it.
8) free trade and robot automation have often been downward pressures on wages and cause less demand for labor, especially since under free-market neoliberalism the bosses don't have to pay taxes to support those laid off or underpaid.

The investment cycle mentioned by Picketty that David cites applies mostly to real estate, since housing costs have been allowed to rise to astronomical levels so that rich people and companies, sometimes foreign, are buying up property and turning the USA into a feudal ownership aristocracy. Homelessness is a result of this for many people. Some other investments like bonds and money market funds, which more regular people own, are not doing well enough to contribute to this effect of ownership of the economy by a few. But stocks have seen huge rises, the Dow Jones average having risen by over 35 times since the early 1980s.

Thus we have the enormous gap between "productivity" and wages, especially since 1980 when Reagan was elected, as seen in the graph.